A reader comments:
I read this first with amusement then with a bit of irritation. Truth is, I like both Hitchens and Cole – they are way up on the list of writers I read compulsively. They both have strong suits – Hitchens is one of the most amazing wordsmiths of his generation, and a man of staggering rhetorical ability to boot. Cole runs a very interesting Middle East press clipping service with commentary (nothing quite like it) and he has an amazing depth of knowledge of Middle Eastern culture, religion and politics. Both Hitchens and Cole have an output which is little short of astonishing. And something which goes with the high volume output – both of them are quite frequently wrong, and are stubborn-headed when their errors are shown.
Surely Cole is wrong in defending Iran’s new nutcase president. On the other hand, Cole’s ideas about extending American influence in the region through soft power and education are spot-on and need to be listened to. Hitchens is in overdrive criticizing him. I am prepared to be forgiving to both of them, because they make important contributions to the discussion and are, in the end, educational and entertaining. Moreover, when I see someone with such immense output, I expect mistakes and am prepared to forgive them (though I’d wish for less pig-headedness). This is fundamentally the case for blogging, which I see as in a different category from print and broadcast media. It’s a more intimate medium. Somewhere in his notebooks, Ralph Waldo Emerson says that the best thing about friends is that one can afford to be stupid around them. This is very true for list-servs, and also true to some extent for blogging. So while I admire the pugilistic spirit, I say: enough already. Cole and Hitchens are both on my must-read list and no amount of intemperate assault is going to lead me to drop either one.
That’s the spirit of true liberalism – and the promise of the blogosphere.
The Dish 